*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Hooper]

At the end of the day, Murali is a cheater because he clearly throws the ball and the rules of cricket were flexed to fit with a specific players needs, which is ridicolous.

He may claim the most Test wickets ever, but in my eye he is nothing but a cheat. I know he can't help it and he has that rubbery wrist, but hes breaking the rules.

 

[roseboy64]

 

[Dasa]

 

[honestbharani]

a) How are you deciding who's right or wrong here? Subjectivity

b) Yes it was

c) *ahem* Anyone who believes all bowlers are chuckers based on these findings needs their head examined tbh

d) So "as long as you don't straighten your arm, you're OK" ...bull**** rule

a) nope, objectivity. Murali was within the limits at that time and Emerson had told people that he was gonna call Murali for throwing the previous day itself. How the hell is that good umpiring, I won't know......


b) no it wasn't. I gave the reasons and it is obvious u have nothing to back ur claim on except your pre-conceived notion that Murali chucks, which he does along with every other bowler, going by the old definition of chucking....


c) anyone who doesn't needs to have their whole bodies along with heads examined and replaced, tbh



d) so now u r blaming that the rules are wrong because Murali actually isn't transgressing them...... Isn't that lovely?

 

[honestbharani]

Um, it was proven scientifically...I don't see how you can argue with this!

To the man who forgets facts and common sense, any point is arguable.....

 

[adharcric]

a) nope, objectivity. Murali was within the limits at that time and Emerson had told people that he was gonna call Murali for throwing the previous day itself. How the hell is that good umpiring, I won't know......


b) no it wasn't. I gave the reasons and it is obvious u have nothing to back ur claim on except your pre-conceived notion that Murali chucks, which he does along with every other bowler, going by the old definition of chucking....


c) anyone who doesn't needs to have their whole bodies along with heads examined and replaced, tbh



d) so now u r blaming that the rules are wrong because Murali actually isn't transgressing them...... Isn't that lovely?

HB, you're wasting your time there.

 

[honestbharani]

HB, you're wasting your time there.

yeah, well, light day at work as of now.



But now that I ve said, expect them to send me loads of stuff to do.

 

[archie mac]

That proves my point though. Even under controlled circumstances, the bowlers had more than 10% bend..so in real time, if anything, you'd expect them to have more.

Not sure how that proves your point? I would rather go with my eye, to me he throws the ball, and more than that young SA bowler who was banned here in Aust last tour

But to be honest I do not want to have this debate yet again, it goes nowhere and ends up having the thread closed

 

[silentstriker]

Not sure how that proves your point? I would rather go with my eye, to me he throws the ball, and more than that young SA bowler who was banned here in Aust last tour

But to be honest I do not want to have this debate yet again, it goes nowhere and ends up having the thread closed

The point was in regards to other bowlers (not Murali) who caused the law to be changed because their flex was greater than the 10 degrees previously allowed by the law (McGrath was one whose flex was found to be more).

 

[Malleeboy]

The point was in regards to other bowlers (not Murali) who caused the law to be changed because their flex was greater than the 10 degrees previously allowed by the law (McGrath was one whose flex was found to be more).

Was there footage taken that shows the flexing in the fast bowlers. I had the idea that it was "hyper" flexing, that is movement in the elbow beyond straight and then moving back to straight (whilst the elbow appears to locked), under the pressure of bowling, whereas Murali is bending from an already bent action. (Nothing wrong with the bent actions especially when he says he can't straighten fully but bending from that is in my book different to hyperflexing of a locked elbow.)

But seriously some footage with markers and angles (superimposed) released to the public of various bowlers would have helped to clear things up. (If anyone has some I'd for one love to see it.) Furthermore we have hawk-eye and other technology to monitor live ball movement, why not develop equipment to monitor arm movements in bowling actions in live play. (Make a good PhD subject. Until super slow mo, very few understood the amount of movement a bat makes at impact.)

 

[open365]

Murali = Greatest spinner ever

 

[Malleeboy]

Murali = Greatest spinner ever

I don't question that he is the greatest spinner ever, I am happy to admit that.
I happy to admit he is a great ambassador for the game.
That he is a great sportsman for his attitude and character.

I'm just not sure that he is a "bowler", in the historical understanding of the difference between bowling and not bowling. Under the modern ruls he is acceptable, would he have been able to continue to bowl under the way cricket was played for most of the last century probably not (certainly not if he was in Richie Benaud team like Meckiff was)

BTW Meckiff was no-balled by the square leg umpire four times, before being taken off and never bowling again. So Emerson had a precedent, for no-balling from square leg,

 

[open365]

Meh, i see the point your making but imo, i don't see him as not being a bowler, i see him as being a completely unique type of bowler that has legal advantages that other bowlers don't.

 

[shehanwije]

Bradman - The Murali of Batting

Steve Waugh once stated that Murali was like the Bradman of bowlers (ref: many sources including Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muttiah_Muralitharan).

Given Murali's phenomenal run of wicket taking feats in the past 7-8 years, perhaps we should be calling Bradman the new Murali .

I justify awarding this label to Bradman by stating:
- Murali took his wkts at an astonishing rate in the modern era whereby the quality and depth of batting is at a much higher level
- Murali bowled on covered wkts, which were obviously prepared at a much better standard than the pre-war era
- Murali has a high strike rate against all test playing nations (http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/301714.html) not just the weaker nations
- Murali has over 1000 wkts in Tests and ODI's, easily the highest by any bowler
and a thousand more facts

Bradman was a class of his own in batting and no doubt will never be bettered, but surely we can award him the "Murali of Batting" tag, without demeaning Murali.

 

[archie mac]

Steve Waugh once stated that Murali was like the Bradman of bowlers (ref: many sources including Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muttiah_Muralitharan).

Given Murali's phenomenal run of wicket taking feats in the past 7-8 years, perhaps we should be calling Bradman the new Murali .

I justify awarding this label to Bradman by stating:
- Murali took his wkts at an astonishing rate in the modern era whereby the quality and depth of batting is at a much higher level
- Murali bowled on covered wkts, which were obviously prepared at a much better standard than the pre-war era
- Murali has a high strike rate against all test playing nations (http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/301714.html) not just the weaker nations
- Murali has over 1000 wkts in Tests and ODI's, easily the highest by any bowler
and a thousand more facts

Bradman was a class of his own in batting and no doubt will never be bettered, but surely we can award him the "Murali of Batting" tag, without demeaning Murali.

The pitches of the 20s and 30s were some of the best batting wickets in the history of cricket.

And Bradman performed in Aust

 

[Burgey]

Steve Waugh once stated that Murali was like the Bradman of bowlers (ref: many sources including Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muttiah_Muralitharan).

Given Murali's phenomenal run of wicket taking feats in the past 7-8 years, perhaps we should be calling Bradman the new Murali .

I justify awarding this label to Bradman by stating:
- Murali took his wkts at an astonishing rate in the modern era whereby the quality and depth of batting is at a much higher level
- Murali bowled on covered wkts, which were obviously prepared at a much better standard than the pre-war era
- Murali has a high strike rate against all test playing nations (http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/301714.html) not just the weaker nations
- Murali has over 1000 wkts in Tests and ODI's, easily the highest by any bowler
and a thousand more facts

Bradman was a class of his own in batting and no doubt will never be bettered, but surely we can award him the "Murali of Batting" tag, without demeaning Murali.

He doesn'y average one-third better than the next best bowler though, does he?

 

[shehanwije]

He doesn'y average one-third better than the next best bowler though, does he?

Yes, thats true....but if we wait for the end of Murali's career, then I am sure that he will have at least 1/3rd more international wkts than the next best (Warne) for around the same number of tests that Warne played.

 

[The Sean]

Steve Waugh once stated that Murali was like the Bradman of bowlers (ref: many sources including Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muttiah_Muralitharan).

Given Murali's phenomenal run of wicket taking feats in the past 7-8 years, perhaps we should be calling Bradman the new Murali .

I justify awarding this label to Bradman by stating:
- Murali took his wkts at an astonishing rate in the modern era whereby the quality and depth of batting is at a much higher level
- Murali bowled on covered wkts, which were obviously prepared at a much better standard than the pre-war era
- Murali has a high strike rate against all test playing nations (http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/301714.html) not just the weaker nations
- Murali has over 1000 wkts in Tests and ODI's, easily the highest by any bowler
and a thousand more facts

Bradman was a class of his own in batting and no doubt will never be bettered, but surely we can award him the "Murali of Batting" tag, without demeaning Murali.

- And there was nothing astonishing about Bradman's rate of scoring?

- Given that Braddles was a batsman, I'm thinking that the uncovered pre-war pitches are a point in his favour too - really not a good argument when you're comparing a batsman with a bowler

- Bradman had a ridiculous average against everyone - including an average of nearly 90 against the best opposition he had to face. Murali's record against the best opposition he has had to face isn't as good.

- He's not the only person to achieve the 1000 international wickets milestone, though I'll grant you he does have the highest tally

There'll never be another Bradman. Statistically, the man simply shouldn't exist.

Let Murali be Murali, which is truly great, without comparing him to the incomparable.

 

[shehanwije]

There'll never be another Bradman. Statistically, the man simply shouldn't exist.

Let Murali be Murali, which is truly great, without comparing him to the incomparable.

Agreed with your comments (if you look in my original post, I stated the same point re Bradman). My post was not intended to compare Bradman with Murali (both are incomprable), but just to state that already Murali has pulled ahead of almost all bowlers in his era, and will surely be the best of bowler of all time when he retires...by sheer weight of performance against all comers

Hence, the tag "Bradman-The Murali of Batting" is no different to comparing "Murali-as the Bradman of bowling" (the topic of this thread) as rather pointless as both are great, but different...QED!

Unless of course your are an ardent one-eyed rabid Australian supporter (known affectionately in cricketing circles as OERAS)...in which case you are excused completely, in advance, for failing to agree passionately with this viewpoint.

 

[pasag]

Unless of course your are an ardent one-eyed rabid Australian supporter (known affectionately in cricketing circles as OERAS)...in which case you are excused completely, in advance, for failing to agree passionately with this viewpoint.

This part of your post is why threads like these end up getting closed, which would be a shame because it's a good (award winning) topic. Watch it.